ASIAN AFFAIRS INTERVIEW WITH PERVEZ MUSHARRAF

(extract Asian Affairs nº21)

SB.- You took part in two wars against India, in 1965 then again in 1971. Then you were only a junior officer and could be said to obey orders. But in 1999, where you were at the top of the military institution, you launch the Kargil offensive. What was at the time the rational for launching hostilities against the Indian army that could have spilled out of control?

PM - We should confine this event to history. Along the line of control there were Mujahiddeens activities and the Indians were concentrating into that area. It started from that and I would like to put this issue behind and see the whole complexity of Kashmir as one and try to move forward today (1).

SB.- Isn't what the Indians are doing with their new proposal for talks?

PM.- They are prepared to talk about everything except the Kashmir issue. They have not yet started any process of dialogue but they have now recommended these twelve points as a start for confidence building. But these points do not get to the Kashmir issue. It is unfortunate. Their twelve points want to reduce tensions (2). They are tactical in a way but if you think they are going to lead to strategic solutions to our problems, it is not the case because they do not want to address the issue. Nevertheless, we will respond favorably because it is a start.

SB.- Why?

PM.- It is a psychological problem on their part. It is the arrogance of power. They do not treat others on the basis of equality. Unfortunately in this South East Asian region, there is the disproportionate size of their country that get on the way. India is disproportionately large and if you look at the other countries of the SARC, there is Bhutan and Nepal, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Pakistan (3). Pakistan is the only one that is a little somewhat near its size, and yet we are much smaller. Now, it is only the equanimity of the largest countries that will bring peace and harmony to the region. It is not the submission of the smaller countries, but the equanimity of the largest one that is required. This is so because even if the smallest countries make a move for accommodation, their people will say quickly that their governments have surrendered to the biggest one. It will hurt even more the ego of the people of the small countries, whereas when a larger country moves towards accommodating small countries by giving up a track of land, it is seen as good virtue and equanimity. Therefore I would say that it is for the larger country, India, to put the onus on how to bring harmony in South East Asia more than any others. Pakistan will contribute its part, we want peace, we want harmony but India must show accommodation, as it is the largest member of South East Asia.

SB.- In a way, you suggest that India takes a Chinese view of the world...

PM.- Yes, China is so much larger and much more powerful than India, and look at the humility with which it treats its neighbors. Look at diplomatic attitude of the Chinese towards their poor neighbors. They try to help and provide all sorts of support (4).

SB.- Let's look at the cooperation with United States on the war against terrorism. Your decision was a pragmatic one and your support brought a lot of economic benefits.

PM.- First of all, I would like to put things in perspective. The economic revival of Pakistan is not entirely based on 9/11. I came in government in 1999 and we had done already a lot of work between 1999 and September 2001 to put the economy back on track (5). We had the capability to run the country; unfortunately the politicians had not been running it so well. By July 2001 we had already accumulated a new record of financial reserves. I don't remember the exact figure but they increased between 1999 and 2001 by about 400% (6). Our exports too were at a record high, power generation was at a record high; so all the economic indicators were going the right way before September 11. And what you allude to is in fact that, after September 11, the Paris club granted a relief to Pakistan. This club is much more than just the United States, other countries were involved and the European Union too had been very kind with us as regards duties. So it was the restructuring of our foreign debt and the EU opening up that gave a bug boost to our economic revival and we are thankful for that (7).

SB.- The United States has paid handsomely the support of Pakistan in its war against al-Qaeda (8). Yet, on Iraq, you have refused to support the action of the Bush administration and to provide troops for securing the country. What is your opinion on this war?

PM.- On the question of Iraq, we are not part of it because the equation is very different. We must not go there as an extension of an occupation. The important point and I made it to all the leaders I met is that the US needs an exit strategy. The Americans should quit Iraq and the Iraqi people should manage their own affairs. If we go as an extension, we will be involved with that against the people of Iraq. We must only go there for the welfare of the people of Iraq and the reconstruction of Iraq and the people of Iraq should see us that way. The people must welcome us. It is also important that other Muslim countries be involved as well there. The necessary environment needs to be in place before the people of Pakistan can really help the Iraqis. Clearly now is not the moment. That is why we did not go and the way forwards really is to have more Muslim countries involved, but clearly whoever is there should not be there. They are not welcome. We should help the Iraqi people have their own security forces of maybe 300 to 400,000 people, because we think of security, law and order, and only then the economy can move. And we have to keep in mind that Iraq is an oil-based economy, and to have oil running you need security. Whether you call that force police, militia or army, you probably need 400,000 people. It will have also the immediate result of offering jobs and cut into the 65% that are currently jobless. You should also use the army cadres without looking at the past. Not all of them were Saddam Hussein's men. They were professional. They know their jobs. If you were able to raise that force fast, you would not need in Iraq any outside forces and my feeling is that it needs to be done pretty fast. That is the only way forward (9).

SB.- Obviously things are not going according to plan in Iraq. As the Americans are putting pressure on their allies to come to help, have you the feeling that they are also ready to listen to them, rather than to command them?

PM.- Frankly, I don't know how they (the Americans) are going about. What you see now on television has a very big negative impact on the Muslims. You see Americans, with weapons and goggles moving around houses, in the streets and in the bazaars among civilians. You see them pointing weapons at those civilians. It is quite bad.

SB.- You have your own problem in the Northern frontiers (10). The MMA has won a lot of support and it is an anti-American coalition of fundamentalists. In the long term, do you see these people as a danger?

PM.- I think that the people supporting the Taliban, the fundamentalists are only a small minority.

SB.- Even in the Northern provinces?

PM.- Yes, even in the Frontier provinces. The fundamentalists there are in a minority. Unfortunately the vast majority is a silent majority (11). We are trying to get them to speak out and I believe that the fundamentalist minority will at some point be sidelined. What you see on television is misleading because you see the extremists in the street but there are only a few of them. We are also acting in the tribal areas. I think that time is on our side and this people will be marginalized and the majority will reject them. Before 9/11, they never represented more than 5% of the votes. At the last election they went to grab double that share of the votes but I think that peak is not sustainable. It was an overreaction to what happened, the bombings in Afghanistan, the Kashmir situation, the Iraq war and all that. I believe that they will eventually go back to only 5% of the votes and will be marginalized.

SB.- To you see their electoral performance then as a reaction against the war in Iraq?

PM.- Certainly.

SB.- Is religious fundamentalism a major issue for you and can it be treated as a minor inconvenience that will fade away?

PM.- Unfortunately the West does not know patience. They ask us, why don't you crackdown on those people? The West does not understand that force is not the answer to everything. Everything cannot be done just by crackdown here and there. To be efficient you need a strategy and you need to implement it with tenacity and patience. That is what we are doing and we are doing it our way. You should see it from Pakistan's eyes and not from American's eyes.

SB.- Pakistan has a population growth rate of about 2,2% and a birth rate ratio of about 3%. Only Afghanistan has a higher ratio in Asia. The budget for education or health remains far less than the money allocated to the army. When are you going to change the way the government has been spending money for the past twenty years (12)?

PM.- To solve our problems, we need a 7% growth and we are moving there. We are restructuring the budget. We have a strategic plan for the development of Pakistan. Our basic plan is first an economic revival of the country. Unless you concentrate on the economy, you cannot concentrate on human resources development. Therefore we should put the horse before the cart, through reviving the economy first, which will take three to four years from now with maybe not that much attention on human resources development. Once we have stabilized the economy on a higher platform, which we have already done in fact, we can move on faster on poverty alleviation.

SB.- But the key assets of Pakistan remain her population. Without education, the people remain in our days a burden and are easy prey to fundamentalism propaganda.

PM.- Maybe our strategy has to pay more attention to the social issues, the human resources and poverty alleviation. We have in fact increased the budget allocation for education not by a few percent but by thousand of percent. We are doing a lot in that sector (13).

SB.- When are we going to see the state taking over the bulk of the education away from the madrisas (religious schools)?

PM.- We are working on that - Inch Allah. Our strategy is clear and we are moving in that direction. And we need to stand this course for twenty years to make a real difference (14).

(see Notes)

© asian-affairs.com